How do you detect "design"?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please read everything and make an honest effort to understand before you answer

That has been done multiple times-

Specified complexity is anything that has these 3 characteristics

1 Complex, it has many parts, many possible combinations or ways ot arrange it, according to the laws of nature

2 independent pattern: it has a pattern that can or could be known independently

3 the laws of nature don’t have a tendency towards that pattern

Before we knew about evolution, living things were SC then.
So SC is not a useful concept to detect design. It's fundamentally an argument from ignorance.

If the system or object doesn’t have all 3 then it is not SC

For example this text or as car is SC because

1 they are complex: there are many possible combinations of letters allowed by my keyboard. A car has many parts

2 they have an independent pattern: the words form meangfull words and sentences in English, the parts of the car have a function

3 the laws of nature don’t have a tendency toward this patterns: there is nothing in the laws of nature that would favor some letters over other letters, the laws of nature don´t organice the parts of a car such that they become functional .

Is the concept of SE clear? Is not, what part is unclear?

We know this text is designed because we know what text is, what webpages are and what posts are on a forum.

I´ll go for the easy answer, experience: every time SC is observed, and the cause is known, the cause is always design.

Except when it isn't. cfr: life before we knew about evolution.
Also, note the bolded part. That shows how SC is not useful to detect design. You are literally saying that we first need to know that it is designed in order for SC to be capable of detecting design. Just like your webforum post example. So, useless.

So if you are still disagreeing, please answer why isn’t SC evidence for manipulation/manufacture?...............

Just did that above.

 

[Pogo]

In fact lets do the whole process , you´ll see that it is not so hard.

1 you haven’t provide enough evidence that say the QR-like image (form the right) was design

2 if you ask me what evidence I would accept

3 I would answer……….. well if the QR opens a file, or a webpage I would accept that as evidence for design.

See I gave you a clear and direct answer for what evidence would I accept in order to conclude design…… it wasn’t hard………why can´t you do the same?

@leroy, The left one is reasonably obviously a digitized image of a flower thus should contain x amount of CSI whether because it is a design of nature or a contrast manipulation by a human, take your pick for the designer. Specification, digitized image of flower.

Now the question is what is the CSI of the right image? It would obviously depend on the specification, but what is that specification, I/you proposed QR code and a test of whether it opens a website. First, how do you calculate the amount of CSI if it does or doesn't open a webpage? Does this compare with the CSI of the left image. Since it is claimed to be a useful measure of design, you should be able to come up with a few more questions that it can answer to demonstrate its utility in design detection.

Bottom line, you say CSI is a useful concept in design detection based on information in an object.
I and everybody else here says it isn't.

Spoiler: Answer

They are in fact the same image the one on the right is just encoded via a reversible process by the website author.

And a QR code generated by my browser,

 

[leroy]

because you really don't know if it was an Urdu spy message that just happened to link to a website.
You don't know how it was generated and so you really can't tell what it MEANS.
you could be totally in error with your assumption of QR and it might well have been B+W screen noise. Without further information, you cannot make a rational decision to attribution.
The answer in science is I don't know. not it looks like my idea of this.

Again you are missing the relevant part………….

1 I don’t know if the “code” was designed or not

2 but I gave you an example of what would convince me that the code was design. I provided a testable method that would convince me. (if the code opens a website I would conclude design)

You may or may not agree (that is not relevant) the relevant part is that I answere to the question on “what would convince me that it was design” in a clear and simple way…………….why cant you do the same?

 

[Pogo]

Again you are missing the relevant part………….

1 I don’t know if the “code” was designed or not

2 but I gave you an example of what would convince me that the code was design. I provided a testable method that would convince me. (if the code opens a website I would conclude design)

You may or may not agree (that is not relevant) the relevant part is that I answere to the question on “what would convince me that it was design” in a clear and simple way…………….why cant you do the same?

Yea, a trivial example of a known designer and a known product, this has nothing to do with detecting design of an unknown designer.
Address the CSI post.

 

[leroy]

Before we knew about evolution, living things were SC then.
So SC is not a useful concept to detect design. It's fundamentally an argument from ignorance.

Before evolution we thought that modern life was SC , but new information came in, and we no longer think that life is SC.

Specifically science showed that life fails at point number 3 which is why life fails to have the attribute of SC.

So the concept of SC is testable, something that *seems* could be shown not to be SC by future discoveries or vice versa,

this is a good thing,

And the relevant thing is that SC still implies design………. But future discoveries cold show that something is not really SC

We know this text is designed because we know what text is, what webpages are and what posts are on a forum.

I used the text example as tool to explain the concept of SC………..is this concept clear?

Except when it isn't. cfr: life before we knew about evolution.
Also, note the bolded part. That shows how SC is not useful to detect design. You are literally saying that we first need to know that it is designed in order for SC to be capable of detecting design. Just like your webforum post example. So, useless.

False, you don’t need to know if something was designed…………what I am saying is that we need to know if the object has those 3 points.

Pogo gave an example of a code that looks like a QR, my comment on that is that if that code opens a website or downloads a document I the code would be SC (because it would fulfill the 3 points) and I would conclude design---………….. Without prior knowledge if it was designed or not.

So do you realize that SC doesn’t mean nor presuposes design?



BTW
1 note how I quoted your words,

2 claimed clearly and unabigously that you are wrong

3 explained why are you wrong.


why can´t you do the same?.................why is it that all I have is handwaving from you?

 

[leroy]

Yea, a trivial example of a known designer and a known product

What are you talking about, I have no idea who the designer of the code is, and I have no idea if there is any “product” in that code………..for all we know the code could open an image that I have never seen (say a Dog with a duck head) and I would still conclude design.

, this has nothing to do with detecting design of an unknown designer.

Ok and what method do you suggest for detecting an “unknown designer”? that is and has always been my question…………….why are you evading the question?

Address the CSI post.

sure...........I have no idea what post is that but If I don’t adress the post within the next 24 you can send me the link and I will address it (perhaps I mistakenly skip it)……………………………I am not an internet atheist………..I have no problem in addressing things directly and unambiguously

 

[leroy]

@leroy, The left one is reasonably obviously a digitized image of a flower

It is not too obvious to me…………. but if you say so…

Now the question is what is the CSI of the right image? It would obviously depend on the specification, but what is that specification, I/you proposed QR code and a test of whether it opens a website.

You would have to compare the number of possible combinations vs. the number of combinations that would open a website.......given that the secodn number is presumibly small compared to the first, then then a code that opens a website woudl have SC


In other words, the code is SC because

1 it has many possible combination

2 only few combinations would open a real website or a document, or a video etc.

3 there is not a law or a tendency that favors “web sites” over random noise.

You don’t have to measure the amount of CSI, all you have to do is check for these 3 points, if any

Is this really that hard to understand.?

 

[Comradio251]

So, having said that, when somebody *Mod edit* then states that one can "detect design" in the universe based on for example of the values of the physical constants, I wonder what the methodology is that is being used.

So in this thread, I invite people who disagree with my methodology of detecting design to explain their methodology of doing so and demonstrate how it achieves better results.

First off, intelligent design is a valid position within science that argues the case for something being well structured or functional in design inasmuch that it's plausible to say an intelligence was likely behind such a thing observed in nature. It's simply this, you conduct the science and see where it leads you. If other scientific theories have a hard time explaining the data of your research and you see a logical case for intelligent design then you can make your case.

ID arguments happen all the time especially with already existing scientific research. Many ID proponents argue against an evolutionary explanation of something in science and see a more rational explanation for ID as a substitute. After all, science for a large part is about uncertainty not certainty.

 

[McBell]

First off, intelligent design is a valid position within science that argues the case for something being well structured or functional in design inasmuch that it's plausible to say an intelligence was likely behind such a thing observed in nature. It's simply this, you conduct the science and see where it leads you. If other scientific theories have a hard time explaining the data of your research and you see a logical case for intelligent design then you can make your case.

ID arguments happen all the time especially with already existing scientific research. Many ID proponents argue against an evolutionary explanation of something in science and see a more rational explanation for ID as a substitute. After all, science for a large part is about uncertainty not certainty.

On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring ID to be taught as an alternative theory.[3]​

​

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

So no, intelligent design is NOT science.

 

[Comradio251]

On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring ID to be taught as an alternative theory.[3]​

​

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

So no, intelligent design is NOT science.

Basing your position off a lone wikipedia statment about a school banning it a while ago now is not an argument. Quite ignorant. Actual employed scientists who do acknowledge possible ID and public schools are not even the same thing. Do you ever have anything of value to say?

 

[Pogo]

It is not too obvious to me…………. but if you say so…



You would have to compare the number of possible combinations vs. the number of combinations that would open a website.......given that the secodn number is presumibly small compared to the first, then then a code that opens a website woudl have SC


In other words, the code is SC because

1 it has many possible combination

2 only few combinations would open a real website or a document, or a video etc.

3 there is not a law or a tendency that favors “web sites” over random noise.

You don’t have to measure the amount of CSI, all you have to do is check for these 3 points, if any

Is this really that hard to understand.?

Is this really that hard to understand.?
Apparently for you because you think that the second image might be a link to a website when it is actually the same as the first and you seem to be incapable of understanding that a post hoc prediction is worthless.

 

[Pogo]

In other words, the code is SC because

1 it has many possible combination

2 only few combinations would open a real website or a document, or a video etc.

3 there is not a law or a tendency that favors “web sites” over random noise.

You don’t have to measure the amount of CSI, all you have to do is check for these 3 points, if any

This is just gibberish, Dembski would throw you out of the class.

 

[Pogo]

@leroy, please go read post 182

 

[Pogo]

Basing your position off a lone wikipedia statment about a school banning it a while ago now is not an argument. Quite ignorant. Actual employed scientists who do acknowledge possible ID and public schools are not even the same thing. Do you ever have anything of value to say?

Talk about ignorance, the school didn't ban anything, they were taken to court for attempting to teach ID as science and the court determined that ID is not science and cannot be taught in science classes. The court ruling still stands and is still in effect.
Also there are no entities using the discovery institutes ideas of ID to do anything outside of fleecing gullible people to give them money.

 

[Pogo]

@leroy, please go read post 182

 

[McBell]

Basing your position off a lone wikipedia statment about a school banning it a while ago now is not an argument. Quite ignorant. Actual employed scientists who do acknowledge possible ID and public schools are not even the same thing. Do you ever have anything of value to say?

You should perhaps actually read it.
The little snippet of the article clearly states that it was a court of law that officially declared intelligent design NOT science.

Care to try again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence is often a matter of interpretation. Why should I trust your interpretation?

You are just making a blank statement of no evidence.

What would the evidence look like if there was any in your view?

In the sciences there are requirements that reduce the need of interpretation. Also by forcing people to follow the scientific method you automatically force people with false evidence to start again. Right now there is no evidence for the creationist side largely because they are afraid to put their ideas into a testable form. In the sciences if your idea is not testable then by definition you do not have any evidence.

 

[osgart]

In the sciences there are requirements that reduce the need of interpretation. Also by forcing people to follow the scientific method you automatically force people with false evidence to start again. Right now there is no evidence for the creationist side largely because they are afraid to put their ideas into a testable form. In the sciences if your idea is not testable then by definition you do not have any evidence.

Science is only going to get the physical behavior of physical phenomena. It's only going to tackle how things work and behave in a physical manner from observation coupled with math.

Science cannot answer why questions about purposes, and intelligence in nature. That immediately falls into the realm of interpretation.

Extrinsically and objectively from third person perspective science can gain clues that consciousness exists. However it's because of our first person perspective we know that consciousness exists. Consciousness has properties that have no physical reference, and is qualitative in nature. There are things in nature that we don't have direct access to and are extremely hard to quantify, if they can be quantified at all.

Simply that there are things in nature that happen naturally does not mean that those natural things are completely understood, and completely observed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

First off, intelligent design is a valid position within science that argues the case for something being well structured or functional in design inasmuch that it's plausible to say an intelligence was likely behind such a thing observed in nature. It's simply this, you conduct the science and see where it leads you. If other scientific theories have a hard time explaining the data of your research and you see a logical case for intelligent design then you can make your case.

If one accepts an incompetent designer perhaps - as to both humans and non-human life:

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot.

(From the Monty Python team I believe)

 

[Comradio251]

You should perhaps actually read it.
The little snippet of the article clearly states that it was a court of law that officially declared intelligent design NOT science.

Care to try again?

And once again there are many actual scientists that are open to the idea or even advocate it. Intelligent design actually has nothing to do with religion though if you have ever read about it which I can tell you haven't. If circular reasoning is your argument you have none. Just because you are prejudice towards an idea doesn't mean the idea is invalid.

But you think somehow a court of law presiding over a public school matter which is not a scienctific discipline disproved Intelligent Design Theory to you then I would love for you to present that proof to me. And no, the proof isn't because they feared there may be a religious implication in it.